The value of non monetary-based retail promotions: Comparing an instore experiment to simulated purchasing
Armando Maria Corsi
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute of Marketing Science
[email protected]
Simone Mueller Loose
MAPP – Department of Business Administration
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute of Marketing Science
[email protected]
Larry Lockshin
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute of Marketing Science
[email protected]
Purpose: Price discounts in the retail sector are the norm rather than an exception.
However, price promotions have several negative impacts on brands. Less attention has been
devoted to non-monetary promotions (e.g. shelf talkers, in-store displays). The aim of this
work is to fill this gap, by showing the effects of non-monetary promotions in store and the
relationship with the way consumers react to analogous non-monetary promotions on-line.
Design: The study comprised three main stages: a) the selection and pre-test of the
promotional material with a representative sample of the Australian wine drinking
population; b) an in-store experiment with an Australian wine retailer across 62 stores
located in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, and c) an online discrete choice
experiment to test the effects of the same stimuli used in the in-store experiment on
consumers’ simulated purchases.
Findings: The in-store analysis confirmed that the closer an advertising message is to a
product, the higher is the impact on consumers’ choices. In particular, the study found that
regional messages had a larger effect compared to the environmental message. Secondly,
verbal shelf talkers tend to have a bigger effect than visual ones. Third, banners are only
useful to promote environmentally friendly wines. In addition, it was possible to observe
substitution effects between wines showing a shelf talker and control wines. The online choice
experiment confirmed to have a high external validity to predict effects of in-store promotion
campaigns. They are a particularly suitable market research method to pre-test promotional
campaigns.
Key words: non-monetary promotions, in-store, on-line, discrete choice experiment, wine
1
1 Introduction & Literature Review
Price discounts in the retail sector are the norm rather than an exception. Although figures vary
between markets and retail outlets, much of the off-premise wine market is sold under different
forms of monetary-based promotions (e.g. percentage discount, buy-one-get-one-free). A recent
study by Jones et al. (2011) on the nature and effects of point-of-sale promotion on alcoholic
beverages in Australia, showed that wine has the highest number of unique promotions (41%),
followed by spirits, beer and RTDs. In particular, wine was most commonly promoted using
discounts (71%), followed by other monetary promotions, such as free gift with purchase (18%).
These promotions are most commonly located on the shelf (90%).
Promotions are used by retailers to encourage the trial or use of products or services (Keller,
2002). They are classified by researchers in different ways: active vs. passive, in-store vs. out-ofstore, price vs. non price (also called monetary vs. non-monetary) promotions (Barat and
Paswan, 2005), depending on the objective of the research. In the present work, we focus on the
effect of two different non-monetary promotions, as recent studies suggest a lack of research in
this area (Yi and Yoo, 2011). Moreover, in a world where retailers are cutting wine producers’
margins with their fierce price discounts (The Age, 2012), it is fundamental for the wine industry
to explore alternative ways to incentivise consumers to buy a product, with no reduction in
producers’ margins.
1.1
Monetary promotions
The most common type of monetary promotions include discounts, coupons, and rebates
(Chandon et al., 2000). Price promotions seem to be effective for traffic generation (Grewal et
al., 1998) and in a few studies they had a short-term positive effect on brand performance (Doob
et al., 1969, Dodson et al., 1978, Chakraborty and Cole, 1991). However, in the majority of
studies discounts tended to have a negative impact on quality perception (Blattberg and Neslin,
1990), had very short-term sales effects (Darke and Chung, 2005, Palazon and DelgadoBallester, 2009) and no long-term sales effects (Doob et al., 1969, Dodson et al., 1978, Guadagni
and Little, 1983, Kahn and Louie, 1990, Mela et al., 1997, Raghubir and Corfman, 1999). In
addition, discounts do not usually expand category demand (Huang and Dawes, 2007); they
erode reference prices (Kumar et al., 1998), and can hurt profits (Jedidi et al., 1999).
Australian wine retailers seem to focus heavily on monetary-based promotions. The latest figures
from Euromonitor International (2012) show that, despite the wine sector’s efforts to encourage
the premiumisation of the Australian wine industry by focusing on higher priced wines, unit
prices for wine in Australia declined by 1% from 2011 to 2012. In addition, wine retailers offer a
growing range of private labels, with Coles and Woolworths (75% market share combined)
shelving more than 100 different wines produced under their umbrella, but not labelled as private
label wines. IBIS World forecasts overall that private label brands will increase in value by 50%
(IBIS WORLD, 2012). These factors show the need for other ways to attract consumer sales
dollars besides price discounting.
1.2
Non-monetary promotions
Non-monetary promotions are represented by store flyers, in-store displays, shelf talkers and
other methods of drawing consumer attention to specific products, which do not involve some
forms of price rebate to stimulate consumers to buy a brand (Pauler and Dick, 2006). Compared
to price promotions, non-monetary promotions have a more positive long-term effect on brand
2 performance (Yi and Yoo, 2011, Aaker, 1991). For example, Sinha and Smith (2000) show that
consumers perceive a non-monetary promotion framed as a gain (e.g. buy-one-get-one-free)
better than a straight discount framed as a reduced loss (e.g. buy 2 for 1, or 50% off). Yi and Yoo
(2011) note that non-monetary promotions seem to elicit a more favourable attitude towards
brands than monetary promotions, but these effects vary in relation to consumers’ deal
proneness. High deal prone consumers react less to non-price promotions than do low-deal prone
consumers.
1.3
Regional vs. environmental information
Previous research has shown the importance of region of origin in choosing wines, especially
those above AUD$15 or equivalent (Atkin and Johnson, 2010, Lockshin et al., 2006, Perrouty et
al., 2006). Wine Australia has been promoting the concept of regionality for the last three years,
with its “regional heroes” and “Australian A+” domestic promotions (Wine Australia, 2012).
Region was chosen as one of the non-monetary factors with the greatest influence on consumer
choice after price.
Less emphasis has been put so far on wine environmental friendliness, but there is evidence that
some consumer segments are willing to spend more for organic/sustainable wines than standard
ones (Mueller-Loose and Lockshin, 2013, Mueller-Loose and Remaud, 2011, Remaud et al.,
2008). One of the most frequent explanations is that consumers are not willing to trade-off the
quality of a wine, for the sake of having an environmentally friendly one. Consumers will
consider an environmentally friendly wine at the same price as regular wines (Lockshin and
Corsi, 2013). With particular relation to Australia, the recent launch of environmental
certification programs, such as EntWine Australia, could lead towards an increase in awareness
and appreciation of environmentally friendly wines. ‘Environmentally friendly’ was chosen as
the contrasting and likely less important factor in wine choice for this experiment.
1.4
Visual vs. verbal information
One of the issues in presenting information is whether to present it in graphical or in written
format. Mueller et al. (2010a) showed that consumers processed graphical information better and
more completely than verbal information. Recent research in food packaging also showed that
graphical logo presentations were more effective in a choice experiment than using only words
as long as the consumers were familiar with the logo (Janssen and Hamm, 2012). Part of the goal
of this project was to test potential new logos for the promotion of regional Australian wines and
environmentally friendly grape growing and wine making practices, so new logos with word
descriptions were compared to descriptions without any logos.
1.5
Presence vs. absence of banners at the entrance of the store
As noted above, most retail promotions are based at the shelf (Jones et al., 2011). A smaller
number of promotions and consumer attention devices are positioned in front of the store or as
consumers walk into a store (Sorensen, 2009). Banners or signage at the front of the store is
similar in conception to the use of information provision in choice experiments, where some
respondents are provided with product information in an experimental design before viewing the
choice experiment. Little research has been conducted on the effectiveness of front of store
banners on consumer purchases.
3 1.6
Can choice experiments validly predict the effect of in-store experiments?
One of the major issues in conducting real in-store research is the difficulty of gaining retailer
access and permission to make changes to actual shelves in enough stores to run an experiment.
This means that other methods have been used to predict real world outcomes, without the cost
and difficulty of manipulating in-store experiments. In order to be useful, new methods have to
prove external validity for real people in real markets to be of value to product developers
(Cardello, 2005, Grunert, 2003, Louviere, 1988). Nevertheless, so far only limited insights are
available for the predictive ability of different marketing research methods. On-line choice
experiments have been used as a proxy for actual experiments, as they are able to validly predict
market success (Winer, 1999, Lynch, 1999, Laurent, 2000, Chandon et al., 2005). Discrete
choice experiments have been found to some predictive ability for consumers’ real market
behaviour (Lusk and Schroeder, 2004, Louviere, 1988). Successful prediction of consumer
choices have covered a wide range of different choice situations and choice complexities,
including supermarket purchases (Chang et al., 2009), respondents’ transportation mode choices
(Currim, 1981), recreation choice behaviour (Louviere and Timmermans, 1992) and food choice
behaviour (Mueller et al., 2010b, Grunert et al., 2009). Recently, choice experiments were
utilised to predict the impact of retail shelf information on consumer choice (Mueller et al.,
2009), but only scanner data on overall sales was validated. To date it is unknown to what degree
predictions from shelf simulation choice experiments are predictive for real market experiments
where the same manipulations are compared.
1.7
Research questions
The overall impetus for this research was to test the efficacy of non-monetary promotions for
increasing the sales of Australian wines in Australia. Two contrasting promotional messages
were chosen with the help of Wine Australia and the Winemaker’s Federation of Australia:
regionality and environmental friendliness. These messages would be placed onto ‘shelf talkers’,
which are promotional messages on the shelf below the product where price discounts are
normally displayed. In addition, the use of a banner at the entrance of the store was compared to
no banner to see if this extra reminder added to the efficacy of the shelf talker promotions. In
light of these considerations, this research aims to test the following research questions:
RQ1.1 Do in-store non-monetary promotions increase sales of wines?
RQ1.2 Which combinations of promotional message, verbal versus verbal + logo with or
without a banner generate the highest sales increase in-store?
RQ2.1 Do simulated (online) non-monetary promotions increase sales of wines?
RQ2.2 Which combinations of promotional message, verbal versus verbal + logo with or
without a banner generate the highest sales increase in a simulated online experiment?
RQ3
2
To what degree can online discrete choice experiments predict in-store retail
promotions?
Materials and methods
The study comprised three main stages: the selection and pre-test of the promotional messages
and logos, the in-store experiment and the online discrete choice experiment.
4 2.1
Selection and pre-test of promotional messages and logos
First, the researchers developed possible communication campaigns for the promotion of wine
regionality and environmental friendliness with Wine Australia and the Winemakers Federation
of Australia. An independent graphic designer designed the logos. The process led to the
selection of six logos (three per type of communication) and 26 slogans (thirteen per type),
which were then evaluated by 822 respondents socio-demographically representative of the
population of Australian red wine drinkers (RoyMorgan, 2006). A Best-Worst experiment
measuring the preferences for the slogans resulted in “Australian Regions – discover your own
backyard” being selected as the most liked regional slogan, and “Wine, Naturally” selected as the
most liked environmental slogan.
In the second stage of the research, the authors combined the slogans and the logos to test
whether combinations of these could stimulate sales in wine stores. The combinations were:
•
Type of message: Regional or Environmental;
•
Shelf-talker presentation format: Visual (Logo + Slogan) or Verbal (Slogan only);
•
Banner at the front of store: Present or Absent
The wine retailer’s professional graphic artist designed the specific shelf talkers and banners,
which were used in both the in-store and online experiment (see Table 1). The banners had both
logos and words, identical to the visual treatment below. The shelf talkers were printed in a
format that allowed them to be attached under chosen bottles of wine in the treatment store.
Table 1: Shelf talkers and banners included in the experiments
Presentation format
Verbal
Visual
Environmental
Regional
5 In order to test the main effects and possible interactions between the message types, shelf talker
formats and banner factors, a full factorial experimental design was developed. This generated a
total of eight treatments and the reference treatment (no shelf talker or banner) to be tested as
shown in Table 2. Each of the stores in the experiment had one treatment in place for the four
weeks of the test. Five stores were selected for each treatment condition. Twenty-two stores had
no treatment at all and were used as reference/control stores.
Table 2: Experimental treatment design
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Message
Shelf Talker Format In store banner Stores
Regional
Visual
Yes
5
Regional
Verbal
Yes
5
Regional
Visual
No
5
Regional
Verbal
No
5
Environmental
Visual
Yes
5
Environmental
Verbal
Yes
5
Environmental
Visual
No
5
Environmental
Verbal
No
5
Reference stores (no treatment)
22
A national wine retailer with over 80 retail outlets nationally agreed to participate in the trial.
Twenty-five wines were selected for this experiment representing a range of red wine grape
varieties and Australian wine regions all priced above AUD$15. Sixteen wines displayed a shelf
talker, while the other nine did not, representing the control group. These wines were selected
from the retailer’s core range of labels available across all stores in Australia, making the best
possible balance between price points, regions of origin, grape varieties, sales index data (high
and low sales), and environmental friendliness as measured by the Winemaker’s Federation of
Australia.
2.2
In-store experiment
Forty retail outlets in three large Australian cities were chosen for the treatment stores. The
stores were grouped in order to minimise the differences in store size and socio-demographics of
the suburb location between groups. The 40 store managers in the eight treatment conditions
were informed about the purpose of the experiment via a three-page brief sent from national
headquarters. A team of four research assistants visited the 40 stores the weekend prior to the
beginning of the experiment to ensure all the material was correctly displayed and the weekend
immediately following the end of the experiment to ensure the material was completely removed.
During the entire four week duration of the experiment the research assistants called the stores
every week to establish if there were any problems and that everything was running smoothly.
Once the experiment was over the retailer provided us with unit sales data for the all 25 wines
from all the treated (n=40) and reference (n=22) stores for the four weeks prior to the test, and
the four weeks of the test.
2.3
6 On-line discrete choice experiment
The third stage of the experiment consisted in an online experiment to test the effects of the same
regional and environmental store banners and shelf talkers as used in the in-store experiment on
consumers’ simulated purchases. One-hundred-ninety-eight red wine drinkers were recruited
from an Australian online panel provider.
Respondents were presented with a series of choice sets with nine bottles of red wine in each set.
Photo realistic images of the wines were shown as they would appear in store and the in-store
price was shown below each bottle. Whenever one of the sixteen treatment wines appeared in a
shelf, the appropriate shelf talker (regional or sustainable, verbal or visual) was shown below the
wine. Respondents were asked to click through each of the nine wines of a shelf to indicate the
most and least preferred wine and the number of bottles they were willing to buy from each of
the nine wines. The wine in question was enlarged at the right hand side of the shelf (see Figure
1).
Figure 1: Online wine shelf simulation with shelf talkers
3
Analysis
The focus of this paper is the analysis of aggregated promotional effects in the different
treatment conditions. The total sales are added across the sixteen treatments and across the nine
control wines as the dependent variable. This was done for the four weeks before and the four
weeks of the test.
In-store sales data were standardised to remove differences across the wines due to different
shelf positions, different number of shelf facings and differences in brand reputation, etc. Bottle
sales in the reference condition were therefore set to the base value of 100 and an index used to
reflect the percentage change in the number of bottles sold per store in the eight different
treatment conditions.
An index was calculated for the online choice experiment from the number of bottles
respondents indicated they were willing to buy across the treatment conditions with 100 as base
value in the reference condition similar to the in-store data.
7 The predictive validity of the online choices was assessed by relating the average index values
across the eight treatments and the reference condition by means of correlation and linear
regression.
4
Results
4.1
Effect of in-store non-price promotions
To address the first research question of the effect of non-monetary promotions on treated wines,
the number of bottles sold during the promotion were related to sales prior the promotion. The
results for promoted wines showed that the use of the promotional material (banners and shelf
talkers) increased sales of treated wines in treated stores compared to control stores for seven out
of eight treatments (compare red and green bars in Figure 2: In-store effect of treatments on promoted
wines, control wines and total ). In particular, the use of a regional shelf talker – visual (184%) or
verbal (152%) – without a banner generated the highest sales increase for treated wines
compared to control stores. Also, a positive promotion effect was recorded for the treated wines
with a verbal environmental shelf talker together with (111%) or without (118%) a banner,
compared to the same wines in control stores. Marginally positive effects were observed for
treated wines promoted with a regional shelf talker and a banner (103%), or with an
environmental shelf talker with (105%) or without (104%) a banner. Only verbal regional shelf
talkers with a banner were not able stimulate higher sales (96%) for treated wines compared to
control stores.
The green bars represent sales of the nine control wines in the treatment stores. We would
generally expect their sales would decrease relative to the same wines in control stores as
consumers were likely to substitute promoted wines for them, since they were chosen to be of
similar origin, grape variety and price as the treatment wines.
This expectation is confirmed in five out of the eight treatments (green bar less than 100%).
There were three exceptions, where we observed an increase in sales of non-promoted wines.
The first two of the three exceptions were observed for the verbal regional shelf talkers with and
without a banner (113%). This phenomenon is particularly surprising as sales of promoted wines
in the banner treatment did not increase compared to control stores (96%). A similar exception
occurred for the verbal regional shelf talker without a banner. However, these wines increased in
sales compared to treated stores by 14%, but still increased over the four week period before the
trial. The third exception was observed for non-promoted wines in stores where verbal
environmental shelf talkers without banners were present. In those stores, sales of control wines
were 60% higher than in control stores. This considerable increase, however, can largely be
attributed to a single outlier wine. We are not aware of the reasons for this increase, but 59
bottles of one of the control wines were sold in one treated store during the experiment,
compared to an average of 6 bottles sold per store in the other treated stores. If we delete this
outlier the increase in sales reduces to 111%, which is exactly the same value registered for
treated wines in the same stores, suggesting that the same increase was observed for promoted
and non-promoted wines. One area we could not control and could not observe were store level
promotions or competitor promotions matched by the selected retailer during the test period.
These might have caused differences in sales of the control wines.
The total effect (blue bar) shows the impact of non-monetary promotions across all promoted and
non-promoted wines we monitored. A positive total effect could only be observed if the
promotion attracted sufficient new sales above any substitution for not promoted wines. Overall,
8 we observed five of the eight treatments where more wines were sold in treatment stores
compared to control stores. The largest effects were noted for the visual and verbal regional shelf
talkers, and for verbal environmental shelf talkers. The verbal regional and environmental shelf
talkers with banner only had small effects on total sales. The other three non-price promotion
conditions resulted in overall negative sales.
Figure 2: In-store effect of treatments on promoted wines, control wines and total effect
Note: all values are standardised number of bottles sold relative to the reference condition = 100, also represented
by the vertical line.
So, the answer to RQ1.1 is that overall non-monetary promotions do increase the sales of wines.
However, the specific effects of different types of non-monetary promotions are mixed (RQ 1.2).
Two of the four regional messages produced large sales increases, but it seemed that the addition
of banners at the entrance to the store had a relative negative effect. Overall, the environmental
message had a lower effect, as predicted in the literature review. But here, there seemed to be no
effect of the banner. The use of the logo in addition to the words did not have a consistent effect
either.
4.2 Effect of non-monetary promotions in online choice experiments
Figure 3 shows the relative effect of the eight promotion conditions relative to the control
condition for the simulated online sales. Promoted wines sold more units than non-promoted
wines for almost all treatments. Only three promotion conditions resulted in an absolute positive
increase in simulated purchasing compared to the reference condition: verbal and visual regional
9 shelf talkers without a banner and environmental shelf talkers without banner). The largest effect
can be observed for the regional verbal shelf talker (increase of simulated purchase by +45%).
Unexpectedly, the banners as an information condition before the experiment did not increase the
effectiveness of shelf talkers. Only the verbal regional shelf talker created sufficient sales to
compensate for the substitution effect from non-promoted wines (i.e. total sales effect +30%).
Similar effects were observed in the in-store and online simulation. As observed in store,
regional verbal shelf talkers had the largest promotional effect (+45%) in the online experiment
and also resulted in a clear increase in total number of bottles sold (+30%) compared to the
control condition. In parallel to the in-store experiment, we did not observe a positive effect of
banners. Because respondent allocation in the online experiment was truly random, this finding
strengthened the validity of the in-store observations. Overall, the answers to RQ 2.1 and RQ 2.2
are mixed. All but one of the non-monetary promotion treatments increased sales of wines
compared to control wines in the same choice sets. However, only three of the treatments
increased sales compared to choice sets without any treatments (the reference condition). This
may indicate that promotions work by creating awareness of certain products, but without any
promotions, consumers use other factors to choose wine.
Figure 3: Effect of treatments on promoted wines, control wines and total effects
Note: all values are standardised indexes relative to the reference condition = 100
4.3 Predictive ability of choice experiments for in-store non-price promotions
10 The ability to predict in-store effects of non-monetary promotions was judged by comparing the
in-store and online indices for the eight treatments and the reference condition. The scatter plot
in Figure 4 with a correlation of r=0.613 (p<0.001) indicate a strong linear relationship between
the in-store and online promotional effects. Effects in the online experiment can explain 38% of
the observed in-store promotional effects. The visual regional shelf talker treatment that resulted
in strong effects in-store, but lower effects online represents an outlier. Without this outlier the
predictive ability of the online choice experiment would be 57% explained variance and r=0.75
(p<0.001).
The results provide positive support for RQ3 as the online choice experiment was able to predict
relative promotion effects observed in-store to a fair degree.
Figure 4: Relationship between online choice ratio and in-store results
200 180 y = 0.69x + 54.30 R² = 0.38 In-­‐store index 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Online choice experiment index Note: nine data points = 8 treatments and reference condition; trend line of exponential fit to nine data points.
5
Discussion and conclusions
In-store analysis confirmed that the closer physically an advertising message is to a product, the
higher the impact on consumers’ choices (Sorensen, 2009). Banners at the front of stores had
little effect on subsequent wine sales compared to shelf talkers. In particular, our study found
that regional messages had a larger effect compared to environmental messages. This was not
surprising given the literature on wine choice (Lockshin and Corsi, 2012). Secondly, verbal shelf
talkers tended to have a slightly greater effect than verbal plus logo ones. The logos were not
known to consumers prior to the study, and would likely become more effective if widely
promoted (Janssen and Hamm, 2012). Finally, when assessing the effect of non-monetary
promotions, one has to take the negative substitution effect on non-promoted wines into account.
Only regional shelf talkers showed an overall positive sales effect, where the promotion effect
overcame the substitution effect for non-promoted wines.
However, even the largest impact of non-price promotion observed in store (+52% in total sales,
+84% in sales of promoted wines) was lower than comparable price-promotion effects from
previous research (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Therefore, these results would not cause retailers
to change the strategic approach they have towards price-based promotional activities.
11 Given the very low cost associated with the design and printing of promotional material similar
to the ones adopted in this research, it is suggested that producers or associations of producers
discuss the opportunity to conduct non-price promotions during the year. This will not just have
the benefit of increasing producers’ and retailers’ margins compared to selling a product at a
discounted price, but will also help reduce the negative effects of price promotions.
One of the biggest issues in conducting this kind of research is maintaining the experimental
conditions in-store free from non-random influences. Store managers were contacted regularly to
ensure that none of the treated and control wines were subject to local price promotions for the
duration of the experiment. Despite the retailer’s promises, the authors found out later that three
of the treated wines and three of the control wines were promoted just before the experiment
started. In addition, two other wines had a massive change in sales during the experiment,
without a reason that could be identified. This increased the variation in the sales results, which
the authors tried to remove by considering only twelve treated wines (out of sixteen) and five
control wines (out of nine).
When simulating in-store promotion in an online choice experiment, we observed high
congruency with actual sales effects in-store. This high predictive ability has important
implications for wine marketing research and retail research in general. Pretesting the
effectiveness of promotional material does not require comprehensive and difficult in-store
testing, which is dependent on retailer agreement and takes considerable time from preparation to
promotion to analysis. A comparable online experiment is designed more quickly and only takes
a couple of days to few weeks to collect the data online. Also, online experiments require far
lower costs than a controlled in-store experiment across several states.
Online experiments allow one to quickly and easily test the effectiveness of different nonmonetary promotion strategies in domestic and eventually overseas markets. The advantage of
online tests is particularly pronounced because the collaboration with overseas retailers is usually
more difficult and travel costs are high.
This work is not exempt from limitations. First, the study was limited to Australian red wines in
Australia, while it would be interesting to extend this research to white wines, foreign wines and
overseas markets. Another limitation is that while the in-store experiment allows a before and
after comparison of the effects of non-monetary promotions, it is only possible to compare the
results of the in-store experiment with the on-line discrete choice experiment for the period when
the non-monetary promotions were displayed, because we did not conduct a discrete choice
experiment without promotional material. Finally, although we tried to avoid an overestimation
of the impact of non-monetary promotions in the discrete choice experiment by including nine
control wines, which were not subject to any promotion, we couldn’t replicate the competition
that the sixteen treated wines had in-store. The core range of wines each store carries is
approximately 500 on top of which several other dozens of labels could be found depending on
store size and other factors. The chance a consumer could notice one of our non-monetary
promotions in-store was theoretically much lower than a respondent answering a DCE. However,
the results show that a DCE can predict in-store choice quite well even without a perfectly
comparable situation between in-store and on-line experiment. The actual level on in-store
response is difficult to predict, but the order and effectiveness of each of the treatments was
similar.
12 The authors have not yet modelled the differences of treatment effects across individual wines,
and have not conducted significance tests to compare different treatment combinations in-store,
on-line and between in-store and on-line. These limitations, however, constitute the main
avenues of further research the authors would like to explore in the near future.
6
References
AAKER, D. A. 1991. Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name, New
York, The Free Press.
ATKIN, T. & JOHNSON, R. 2010. Appellation as an indicator of quality. International Journal
of Wine Business Research, 22, 42-61.
BARAT, S. & PASWAN, A. K. 2005. Do higher face-value coupons cost more than they are
worth in increased sales? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 379-386.
BLATTBERG, R. C. & NESLIN, S. A. 1990. Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods and
Strategies, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
CARDELLO, A. V. 2005. Terminology, reliability, validity, and subjectivity in the search for the
"voice of the consumer". Food Quality and Preference, 16, 203-205.
CHAKRABORTY, G. & COLE, C. 1991. Coupon characteristics and brand choice. Psychology
& Marketing, 8, 145-159.
CHANDON, P., MORWITZ, V. G. & REINARTZ, W. J. 2005. Do intentions really predict
behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 69, 114.
CHANDON, P., WANSINK, B. & LAURENT, G. 2000. A Benefit Congruency Framework of
Sales Promotion Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64, 65-81.
CHANG, J. B., LUSK, J. L. & NORWOOD, F. B. 2009. How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys
and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 91, 518-534.
CURRIM, I. S. 1981. Using Segmentation Approaches for Better Prediction and Understanding
from Consumer Mode Choice Models. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18, 301309.
DARKE, P. R. & CHUNG, C. M. 2005. Effects of Pricing and Promotion on Consumer
Perceptions: it depends on how you frame it. Journal of Retailing, 81, 35-47.
DODSON, J. A., TYBOUT, A. M. & STERNTHAL, B. 1978. Impact of deals and deal
retraction on brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 72-81.
DOOB, J., CARLSMITH, J., FREEDMAN, J., LANDAUER, T. & TOM, S. 1969. Effect of
initial selling price on subsequent sales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
11, 345-350.
EUROMONITOR INTERNATIONAL 2012. Wine – Australia. Available at:
http://www.portal.euromonitor.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/PORTAL/ResultsList.aspx.
13 GREWAL, D., MONROE, K. B. & KRISHNAN, R. 1998. The Effects of Price-Comparison
Advertising on Buyers' Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and
Behavioral Intentions. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 46-59.
GRUNERT, K. G. 2003. Purchase and consumption: the interdisciplinary nature of analysing
food choice. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 39-40.
GRUNERT, K. G., JUHL, H. J., ESBJERG, L., JENSEN, B. B., BECH-LARSEN, T.,
BRUNSØ, K. & MADSEN, C. Ø. 2009. Comparing methods for measuring consumer
willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Quality
and Preference, 20, 607-619.
GUADAGNI, P. M. & LITTLE, J. D. C. 1983. A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on
Scanner Data. Marketing Science, 2, 203-238.
HUANG, R. S. & DAWES, J. 2007. Price Promotions: How much volume is discounted that you
would sell anyway at the normal price? Report 43 for Corporate Members. EhrenbergBass Institute for Marketing Science.
JANSSEN, M. & HAMM, U. 2012. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer
preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality
and Preference, 25, 9-22.
JEDIDI, K., MELA, C. F. & GUPTA, S. 1999. Managing Advertising and Promotion for LongRun Profitability. Marketing Science, 18, 1-22.
JONES, S., BARRIE, L. & ROBINSON, L. 2011. An investigation of the nature and effects of
point-of-sale promotions for alcohol beverages.
KAHN, B. E. & LOUIE, T. A. 1990. Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice
behavior for variety-seeking and last-purchase-loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27, 279–289.
KELLER, K. L. 2002. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Management
Brand Equity, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
KUMAR, V., KARANDE, K. & REINARTZ, W. J. 1998. The impact of internal and external
reference prices on brand choice: the moderating role of contextual variables. Journal of
Retailing, 74, 401-426.
IBISWORLD 2012. The rise and rise of private labels. Available
http://www.ibisworld.com.au/about/media/pressrelease/release.aspx?id=292
at
LAURENT, G. 2000. Improving the external validity of marketing models: A plea for more
qualitative input. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, 177-182.
LOCKSHIN, JARVIS, D'HAUTEVILLE & PERROUTY 2006. Using simulations from discrete
choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards
in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 166-178.
LOCKSHIN, L. & CORSI, A. M. 2012. Consumer behaviour for wine 2.0: A review since 2003
and future directions. International Journal of Wine Economics and Policy, 1, 2-23.
14 LOUVIERE, J. & TIMMERMANS, H. J. L. S. 1992. Testing the external validity of hierarchical
conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice. Leisure Sciences, 14, 179194.
LOUVIERE, J. J. 1988. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: A review of theory,
methods, recent developments, and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy, 22, 93-119.
LUSK, J. L. & SCHROEDER, T. C. 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test
with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86,
467-482.
LYNCH, J. G. 1999. Theory and external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
27, 367-376.
MELA, C. F., GUPTA, S. & LEHMANN, D. R. 1997. The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and
Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 248-261.
MUELLER-LOOSE, S. & LOCKSHIN, L. 2013. Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for
cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Journal of Food
Quality and Preference, 27, 230-242.
MUELLER LOOSE, S. & REMAUD, H. 2011. Impact of corporate social responsibility claims
on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for
Marketing Science.
MUELLER, S., LOCKSHIN, L. & LOUVIERE, J. 2010a. What your see may not be what you
get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters,
21, 335-350.
MUELLER, S., LOCKSHIN, L., LOUVIERE, J., FRANCIS, L. & OSIDACZ, P. 2009. How
does shelf information influence consumers' wine choice? The Australian and New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 24, 50-56.
MUELLER, S., OSIDACZ, P., FRANCIS, I. L. & LOCKSHIN, L. 2010b. Combining discrete
choice and informed sensory testing in a two-stage process: Can it predict wine market
share? Food Quality and Preference, 21, 741-754.
PALAZON, M. & DELGADO-BALLESTER, E. 2009. Effectiveness of price discounts and
premium promotions. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 1108–1129.
PAULER, G. & DICK, A. 2006. Maximizing profit of a food retailing chain by targeting and
promoting valuable customers using Loyalty Card and Scanner Data. European Journal
of Operational Research, 174, 1260-1280.
PERROUTY, J. P., D'HAUTEVILLE, F. & LOCKSHIN, L. 2006. The influence of wine
attributes on region of origin equity: an analysis of the moderating effect of consumer's
perceived expertise. Agribusiness, 22, 323-341.
RAGHUBIR, P. & CORFMAN, K. 1999. When do price promotions affect pretrial brand
attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 211-222.
15 REMAUD, H., MUELLER, S., CHVYL, P. & LOCKSHIN, L. Do Australian wine consumers
value organic wine? International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business
Research, 17-19 July 2008 2008 Siena. 1-15.
ROYMORGAN 2006. Roy Morgan Single Source Alcholic Beverages Australia January December 2006. Melbourne.
SINHA, I. & SMITH, M. F. 2000. Consumers' Perceptions of Promotional Framing of Price.
Psychology & Marketing, 17, 257-275.
SORENSEN, H. 2009. Inside the Mind of the Shopper, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson
Education Inc.
THE AGE 2012. Wine boss fires parting shot at big two's retail 'mafia'. Available at
http://www.smh.com.au/national/wine-boss-fires-parting-shot-at-big-twos-retail-mafia20120602-1zouk.html
WINER, R. S. 1999. Experimentation in the 21st century: the importance of external validity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 349-358.
WINE
AUSTRALIA
2012.
Homepage.
http://www.wineaustralia.com/en/Splash%20screen.aspx
Availble
at
YI, Y. & YOO, J. 2011. The Long-Term Effects of Sales Promotions on Brand Attitude Across
Monetary and Non-Monetary Promotions. Psychology & Marketing, 28, 879-896.